SATYA BANSAL Vs. KALAWATI AND OTHERSPUNLR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.2799 of 2000 preferred by the owner challenging the liability fastened upon it and 3861 of 2001 on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Mr. Munish Behl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-owner submits that the Tribunal has committed illegality and perversity in exonerating the insurance company from indemnification owing to the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In fact, the driver employed by the owner had a driving licence bearing No.15227/98/MKG issued on 06.06.1998 valid upto 5.6.2001. Instead of summoning the witness from the concerned Licensing Authority i.e. Nagaland, it had sought indulgence of the Court for appointment of the local commissioner. The local commissioner Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocate was appointed as local commissioner, who submitted his report dated 02.08.2000 revealing that he had not verified the register in the manner it was required to be, for, he had seen the licence bearing No.15227/98/MKG dated 2.9.1996 whereas the driving licence was issued on 6.6.1998. This itself was a clincher for not discharging the onus on the part of the insurance company, therefore, the award under challenge qua finding on issue No.2 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submits that the aforementioned local commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties without any objection. Despite extensive cross-examination, no suggestion was put with regard to non-examination of the record maintained by the Licensing Authority, Nagaland. Even otherwise, the address of the driver was of Ropar, Punjab and it has not come forth as to how he managed to obtain the licence from Nagaland. Therefore, the insured committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus, the award under challenge cannot be modified.